The Issue: President Obama’s recent Mideast trip and whether he improved prospects for peace.
***
John Bolton’s column deriding the results of President Obama’s Mideast trip is a model of obfuscation (“Obama’s Mideast Trip Changes Nothing,” PostOpinion, March 25).
It is up to the two sides to decide whether they want to resume negotiations or not. Obama can do little more than pressure them to do so, which is his proper role, along with the United Nations, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, all of whom have an interest in peace and justice in the area.
Most confusing is Bolton’s charge that the president’s call for a contiguous independent Palestinian state on the West Bank is “objectively pro-Palestinian,” as if that’s a bad thing.
It has been the policy of the United States during the last four administrations to champion the Palestinian right of self-determination; according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli government is in favor of that objective, as well. We are advocating the rights of the two peoples to live side by side in peace and security.
Irwin Wall
Manhattan
As a good old New York Jew, I am hopeful that the president’s interest in helping the Palestinians and Israelis sit down and hammer out a two-state solution, roughly based on 1967 borders, will bring some movement toward a just resolution of this tragic conflict.
True friends of Israelis and Palestinians should be helping both sides work out a viable compromise, not egging them on to more conflict.
Jenny A. Hurwitz
Manhattan